Author
Topic: Sigma 35 or 135L?? (Read 6986 times)

Both good choices obviously. Necessary for your kit? No, not really. So either safe the money or buy what itches you most or would lead to more inspiration.

I personally find 35mm on full frame to be the most boring focal length. Not really wide, to wide for portraits in my book. And the shallow depth of field look is not that easy to get to unless you go in close - which for people photography is problematic with a wide angle lens (any lens really but let's not get into the physics here).

The benefit of the 35 is that you could use it on your 7D as a 50mm substitute which I personally find more useful than real 35mm. The 135L is a lovely lovely lens. Good point though that you 85mm kind of covers that focal length already (and becomes kind of a 135 2.0 on a crop camera anyway).

That being said, the 135 on FF is one of my favorites for those environmental candid shots in crowds. If you had two full frame bodies it would be a no brainer. With your setup I'd say don't spend the money right now - or see if there is anything else you need for these kind of jobs such as insurance (including liability!), back up flash, enough batteries, a sturdy case, whatever.

I personally find 35mm on full frame to be the most boring focal length. Not really wide, to wide for portraits in my book. And the shallow depth of field look is not that easy to get to unless you go in close - which for people photography is problematic with a wide angle lens (any lens really but let's not get into the physics here).

.....The benefit of the 35 is that you could use it on your 7D as a 50mm substitute which I personally find more useful than real 35mm.

I own both the 35L and the 135L... and will say that blanket statements such as the ones above are rarely accurate.

35mm has its place on full frame...and it is ludicrous to suggest it's primary benefit is as a 50mm on crop bodies!! 35L has been an event and street photography standard for a good reason... it provides that slightly off-keel punch to the shot, includes enough detail when needed in the background that is not totally melted away owing to shallow DOF (you don't always want too shallow a DOF in event photography as you want to convey the existence of the crowd, the movement, and to provide context to the subject). This is not an excercise in how shallow the bokeh can be even though 35L is capable of excellent bokeh.

135L which I recommended also has its place in event photography, though not always associated with events, as it provides distance from the subject(s) not to mention the IQ... which to me includes not only the sharpness but also the compression aspects of the tele.

@ 7enderbender - yeah, I suppose I could live without these lenses but then again I've already invested a lot of money in my gear, slowly building it up. Seems silly to just stop now, especially when this close to my ideal kit! I already have a 430 ex II speedlite, 2 Yongnuo 560 II, umbrellas, light stands, bags, cases the lot. Don't need insurance, live in Japan. No one will nick your gear here. If I break it al buy a new one!

But back to 35 and 135. Hmmm boring focal length? I guess you could say that but depends how you use it. I want it for full length portraits and enviromental portraits. I know that shallow dof look is hard to get at that focal length. That's part of the reason I wanna try it! I want to push myself and improve my skills as a photographer rather than just improve my photoshop skills!

I'm certain about the 135L now. I'll keep the 85mm, it's not taking up space so no point selling it. It's a shame that lens fringes so much between 1.8 and 2.8. Or I would have been content. I can ser the purple without even zooming in! And I'm not about to spend hours correcting 1000 odd images.

Just did a metadata search on LR, most of my shots are either at the wide end (17mm - 28mm) or the tele end (mostly around 85mm). I also tend to crop a lot. So I guess my style is a mix of wide and close-up.

Next experiment - stick my 17-40 on 35mm and shoot at that focal length all day, see how it goes.

Just did a metadata search on LR, most of my shots are either at the wide end (17mm - 28mm) or the tele end (mostly around 85mm). I also tend to crop a lot. So I guess my style is a mix of wide and close-up.

Next experiment - stick my 17-40 on 35mm and shoot at that focal length all day, see how it goes.

one of my favourite combos has always been 2 FF bodies 1 with the 16-35 f2.8L II and the other with the sigma 85 f1.4it gives great coverage and flexability, especially for events

Just did a metadata search on LR, most of my shots are either at the wide end (17mm - 28mm) or the tele end (mostly around 85mm). I also tend to crop a lot. So I guess my style is a mix of wide and close-up.

Next experiment - stick my 17-40 on 35mm and shoot at that focal length all day, see how it goes.

While you're at it, since you have the 50mm 1.8, compare it with 35mm to see whether you think 35 would be much more useful than 50. For my taste, on FF 35mm is too wide most of the time, partly because I prefer not to get very close to the subject, especially if the subject is a person. My inclination is to go longer, and would take the 135L for the reasons given by others. (That said, the Sigma 35mm is so good I've found myself going out of my way to find way to use it, which has been a rewarding experience in itself....)